Category: Economics

Tech Startup Rejects Gig Economy

(p. 1) SEATTLE — When Glenn Kelman became the chief executive of his online real estate start-up, he defied the tech industry’s conventional wisdom about how to grow.
Instead of hiring independent contractors, he brought in full-time employees and put them on the payroll — with benefits. That decision over a decade ago made Mr. Kelman and his company, Redfin, iconoclasts in the technology world.
Many tech start-ups lean on the idea of the “gig economy.” They staff up rapidly with freelancers, who are both cheaper to hire (none of the insurance, 401(k) and other expenses) and more flexible (they can work as much or as little as needed). It’s the model Uber has used to upend the taxi business.
. . .
Mr. Kelman argues that full-time employees allow him to offer better customer service. Redfin gives its agents salaries, health benefits, 401(k) contributions and, for the most productive ones, Redfin stock, none of which is standard for contractors. Redfin currently employs more than 1,000 agents.
Now with his company on a stronger footing, Mr. Kelman says he believes his approach has been vindicated. He has even (p. 5) become an informal counselor to other tech entrepreneurs exploring a shift to employees from contractors.
. . .
A number of technology companies have switched or are in the process of switching their contractors to employees for reasons similar to those of Redfin, including Shyp, a parcel shipping service; Luxe Valet, which offers a valet parking app; and Munchery, a food delivery service. Honor, an on-demand service for home health care professionals, is making the move to improve training.

For the full story, see:
NICK WINGFIELD. “A Start-Up Shies Away from Gig Economy.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., JULY 10, 2016): 1 & 5.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JULY 9, 2016, and has the title “Redfin Shies Away From the Typical Start-Up’s Gig Economy.”)

Factory Workers Collaborate with Robots

(p. B1) MARION, Ohio–A new worker is charming the staff at Whirlpool Corp.’s plant here: a robot called Chappy.
Employees at the dryer factory say they have taken a shine to one-armed, programmable robots that have assumed some repetitive tasks, working in concert with their human colleagues. One, nicknamed after a worker whose rote duties it has inherited, snaps photographs to scan for defects.
“If I can get some help doing my job, I’m all for that,” said Karen “Chappy” Beidler, who is now free to focus on checking and fixing wiring connections. “It’s technology helping manpower–you can’t beat it.”

For the full story, see:
Andrew Tangel. “Latest Robots Lend an Arm.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., Nov. 9, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Nov. 8, 2016, and has the title “Latest Robots Lend a Helping Arm at Factories.”)

47% Believe College Degree Will NOT Lead to Good Job

(p. A3) Americans are losing faith in the value of a college degree, with majorities of young adults, men and rural residents saying college isn’t worth the cost, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey shows.
The findings reflect an increase in public skepticism of higher education from just four years ago and highlight a growing divide in opinion falling along gender, educational, regional and partisan lines.
. . .
Overall, a slim plurality of Americans, 49%, believes earning a four-year degree will lead to a good job and higher lifetime earnings, compared with 47% who don’t, according to the poll of 1,200 people taken Aug. 5-9. That two-point margin narrowed from 13 points when the same question was asked four years earlier.
Big shifts occurred within several groups. While women by a large margin still have faith in a four-year degree, opinion among men swung significantly. Four years ago, men by a 12-point margin saw college as worth the cost. Now, they say it is not worth it, by a 10-point margin.
Likewise, among Americans 18 to 34 years old, skeptics outnumber believers 57% to 39%, almost a mirror image from four years earlier.
Today, Democrats, urban residents and Americans who consider themselves middle- and upper-class generally believe college is worth it; Republicans, rural residents and people who identify themselves as poor or working-class Americans don’t.

For the full story, see:
Josh Mitchell and Douglas Belkin. “Fewer Americans Value a College Degree, Poll Finds.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., SEPT. 8, 2017): A3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date SEPT. 7, 2017, and has the title “Americans Losing Faith in College Degrees, Poll Finds.” The order of paragraphs was different in the online and print versions; the passages quoted above are from the online version.)

Students Learn More in Charter Schools

(p. A17) On Sept. 8, 1992, the first charter school opened, in St. Paul, Minn. Twenty-five years later, some 7,000 of these schools serve about three million students around the U.S. Their growth has become controversial among those wedded to the status quo, but charters undeniably are effective, especially in urban areas. After four years in a charter, urban students learn about 50% more a year than demographically similar students in traditional public schools, according to a 2015 report from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
The American cities that have most improved their schools are those that have embraced charters wholeheartedly. Their success suggests that policy makers should stop thinking of charters as an innovation around the edges of the public-school system–and realize that they simply are a better way to organize public education.
New Orleans, which will be 100% charters next year, is America’s fastest-improving city when it comes to education. Test scores, graduation and dropout rates, college-going rates and independent studies all tell the same story: The city’s schools have doubled or tripled their effectiveness in the decade since the state began turning them over to charter operators.
. . .
The teachers unions hate this model, because most charter schools are not unionized. But if someone discovered a vaccine to cure cancer, would anyone limit its use because hospitals and drug companies found it threatening?

For the full commentary, see:
David Osborne. “Charter Schools Are Flourishing on Their Silver Anniversary; The first one, in St. Paul, Minn., opened in 1992. Since then they’ve spread and proven their success.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., Sept. 8, 2017): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 7, 2017.)

The commentary, quoted above, is related to Osborne’s book:
Osborne, David. Reinventing America’s Schools: Creating a 21st Century Education System. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2017.

Reducing Taxes and Regulations Can Boost Growth

(p. A2) The angst was on display this weekend at the annual conference of the American Economic Association, the profession’s largest gathering. The conference is a showcase for agenda-setting research, a giant job fair for the nation’s most promising young economists and, this year, the site of endless discussion about how to rebuild trust in the discipline.
Many academic economists have been champions of free trade and globalization, ideas under assault among rising populist movements in advanced economies around the world. The rise of President-elect Donald Trump, with his fierce rhetoric against elites, in particular, left many at this conference questioning their place in the world.
“The economic elite did many things to undermine their credibility while people’s economic fortunes were taking a turn for the worse,” said Steven Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago.
. . .
Stanford University’s John Taylor and Columbia’s Glenn Hubbard said Mr. Trump’s plans to simplify the tax and regulatory codes could indeed boost the economy’s growth. Both economists served in the past in the White House Council of Economic Advisers, long populated by academics who present at the AEA conference every January.
This year, academics are out in the cold. During the election The Wall Street Journal contacted every former member of the CEA, including those going back to President Richard Nixon. None had been tapped as an adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign, nor did any publicly endorse him.
The president-elect is “not particularly interested in hearing from the academic economist club,” Mr. Davis said.

For the full story, see:
Josh Zumbrun. “Economists Grapple With Public Disdain.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Jan. 9, 2017): A2.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 8, 2017, and has the title “Top Economists Grapple With Public Disdain for Initiatives They Championed.”)

Courageous Grover Cleveland Belongs in “Entitlement Reform Hall of Fame”

(p. A11) Mr. Cogan has just written a riveting, massive book, “The High Cost of Good Intentions,” on the history of entitlements in the U.S., and he describes how in 1972 the Senate “attached an across-the-board, permanent increase of 20% in Social Security benefits to a must-pass bill” on the debt ceiling. President Nixon grumbled loudly but signed it into law. In October, a month before his re-election, “Nixon reversed course and availed himself of an opportunity to take credit for the increase,” Mr. Cogan says. “When checks went out to some 28 million recipients, they were accompanied by a letter that said that the increase was ‘signed into law by President Richard Nixon.’ ”
The Nixon episode shows, says Mr. Cogan, that entitlements have been the main cause of America’s rising national debt since the early 1970s. Mr. Trump’s pact with the Democrats is part of a pattern: “The debt ceiling has to be raised this year because elected representatives have again failed to take action to control entitlement spending.”
. . .
Mr. Cogan conceived the book about four years ago when, as part of his research into 19th-century spending patterns, he “saw this remarkable phenomenon of the growth in Civil War pensions. By the 1890s, 30 years after it had ended, pensions from the war accounted for 40% of all federal government spending.” About a million people were getting Civil War pensions, he found, compared with 8,000 in 1873, eight years after the war. Mr. Cogan wondered what caused that “extraordinary growth” and whether it was unique.
When he went back to the stacks to look at pensions from the Revolutionary War, he saw “exactly the same pattern.” It dawned on him, he says, that this matched “the evolutionary pattern of modern entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps.”
. . .
Who would feature in an Entitlement Reform Hall of Fame? Mr. Cogan’s blue eyes shine contentedly at this question, as he utters the two words he seems to love most: Grover Cleveland. “He was the very first president to take on an entitlement. He objected to the large Civil War program and thought it needed to be reformed.” Cleveland was largely unsuccessful, but was a “remarkably courageous president.” In his time, Congress had started passing private relief bills, giving out individual pensions “on a grand scale. They’d take 100 or 200 of these bills on a Friday afternoon and pass them with a single vote. Incredibly, 55% of all bills introduced in the Senate in its 1885 to 1887 session were such private pension bills.”.

For the full interview, see:
Tunku Varadarajan. “THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with John F. Cogan; Why Entitlements Keep Growing, and Growing, and . . ..” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Sept. 9, 2017): A11.
(Note: ellipsis in title, in original; other ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the interview has the date Sept. 8, 2017, and has the title “THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW; Why Entitlements Keep Growing, and Growing, and . . ..”.)

The Cogan book, mentioned above, is:
Cogan, John F. The High Cost of Good Intentions: A History of U.S. Federal Entitlement Programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017.

GDP Neglects Benefits of New Goods

(p. A13) . . . [one] source of underestimation of growth is the failure to capture the benefit of new goods and services. Here’s how the current procedure works: When a new product is developed and sold to the public, its market value enters into nominal gross domestic product. But there is no attempt to take into account the full value to consumers created by the new product per se.
Think about statins, the remarkable class of drugs that lower cholesterol and reduce deaths from heart attacks. By 2003 statins were the best-selling pharmaceutical product in history. The total dollar amount of statin sales was counted in GDP, but the government’s measure of real income never included anything for improvements in health that resulted from statins–such as a one-third decrease in the death rate from heart disease among those over 65 between 2000 and 2007.
Or consider consumer electronics. New York University economist William Easterly recently tweeted an image of a 1991 RadioShack newspaper ad and noted that all the functions of the devices on sale–clock radio, calculator, cellphone, tape-recorder, compact-disk player, camcorder, desktop computer–are “now available on a $200 smartphone.” The benefits to consumers from these advances don’t show up in GDP.

For the full commentary, see:

Martin Feldstein. “We’re Richer Than We Realize; The official economic statistics fail to account for quality improvements and new products.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Sept. 9, 2017): A13.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed word, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 8, 2017.)

When 4% Economic Growth Was Routine

(p. R3) Starting in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was in the middle of his first presidential term, the American economy reeled off three straight years of 4% growth. The economy went on to hit that politically important target in nine of the next 17 years. In fact, even as Mr. Bush ran for re-election, the economy actually was revving up after a two-year lull, though the surge came too late for voters to realize it.
Then, at the turn into a new millennium, that streak stopped. In the last 15 years, the American economy hasn’t grown at a 4% annual rate even once.
But it isn’t just the U.S. In the last 15 years, according to International Monetary Fund data, exactly one of the traditional seven major industrialized nations achieved annual economic growth of 4%, one time: Japan in 2010.
In sum, the kind of economic growth that used to be relatively routine in the industrialized world has become virtually extinct.
This low-growth era leaves political leaders facing two unsavory tasks. The first is to explain to unhappy voters why growth is so anemic, and the second is to convince them that they know what to do about it.

For the full commentary, see:
Gerald F. Seib. “Politicians Pine for Elusive Solution to Voters’ Discontent: 4% Growth.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Jan. 17, 2017): R3.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Jan. 16, 2017.)

Lower 50% Have Largely Stagnated in Recent Decades

(p. B1) Even with all the setbacks from recessions, burst bubbles and vanishing industries, the United States has still pumped out breathtaking riches over the last three and half decades.
The real economy more than doubled in size; the government now uses a substantial share of that bounty to hand over as much as $5 trillion to help working families, older people, disabled and unemployed people pay for a home, visit a doctor and put their children through school.
Yet for half of all Americans, their share of the total economic pie has shrunk significantly, new research has found.
This group — the approximately 117 million adults stuck on the lower half of the income ladder — “has been completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s,” the team of economists found. “Even after taxes and transfers, there has been close to zero growth for working-age adults in the bottom 50 percent.”
. . .
(p. B3) By 2014, the average income of half of American adults had barely budged, remaining around $16,000, while members of the top 1 percent brought home, on average, $1,304,800 or 81 times as much.
That ratio, the authors point out, “is similar to the gap between the average income in the United States and the average income in the world’s poorest countries, the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Burundi.”
The growth of incomes has probably increased a bit since 2014, the latest year for which full data exists, said Mr. Zucman, who, like Mr. Saez, also teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. But it is “not enough to make any significant difference to our long-run finding, and in particular, to affect the long-run stagnation of bottom-50-percent incomes.”
. . .
Mr. Piketty, Mr. Saez and Mr. Zucman concluded that the main driver of wealth in recent years has been investment income at the top. That is a switch from the 1980s and 1990s, when gains in income were primarily generated by working.

For the full story, see:
PATRICIA COHEN. “”A Bigger Pie, but Uneven Slices; Research Shows Slim Gains for the Bottom 50 Percent.” The New York Times (Weds., DEC. 7, 2016): B1 & B3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 6, 2016, and has the title “A Bigger Economic Pie, but a Smaller Slice for Half of the U.S.” The print article shares the title “A Bigger Pie, but Uneven Slices” with a commentary by Eduardo Porter. The Cohen article has the unique subtitle “Research Shows Slim Gains for the Bottom 50 Percent.”)

The July 7, 2017 draft of Piketty, Saez and Zucman’s working paper, mentioned above, is:
Piketty, Thomas, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman. “Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States.” Working Paper, July 6, 2017.

Warren Buffett: High-Tech Especially Hard to Predict

(p. 1D) Turns out that Warren Buffett spoke out in IBM’s favor, sort of, 37 years ago when the government accused “Big Blue” of illegal
anti-competitive practices.
. . .
But Buffett was one of 87 witnesses who testified on behalf of the International Business Machines Corp. during the federal government’s antitrust trial.
. . .
In his testimony, Buffett said he asked the Price, Waterhouse accounting firm to calculate the debt levels of 104 other computer-oriented companies that, according to federal prosecutors, were harmed by IBM’s low prices and other alleged anti-competitive actions.
Buffett said his hypothesis was that the competing companies had trouble raising money to finance their growth because they had too much debt. The accounting analy-(p. 2D)sis, Buffett said in court, “bore that hypothesis out in a very conclusive manner.”
So why didn’t he buy IBM stock in 1980?
Because, he told the court, with high-tech companies it’s “particularly difficult to have a clear view of a long-term future. … High-technology companies are ones where both the product and the customer’s use of it are (areas in which) I don’t feel I have a full understanding.”

For the full commentary, see:
Steve Jordon. “WARREN WATCH; What Buffett said in court about IBM in 1980.” Omaha World-Herald (Sun., Jan 22, 2017): 1D-2D.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the title “WARREN WATCH; What Warren Buffett said in court about IBM in 1980.”)

Half of Today’s 36-Year-Olds Earn Less Than Their Parents Did at Same Age

FadingAmericanDreamGraph2017-09-08.pngSource of graph: http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

(p. 2) These days, people are arguably more worried about the American dream than at any point since the Depression. But there has been no real measure of it, despite all of the data available. No one has known how many Americans are more affluent than their parents were — and how the number has changed.

The beginnings of a breakthrough came several years ago, when a team of economists led by Raj Chetty received access to millions of tax records that stretched over decades. The records were anonymous and came with strict privacy rules, but nonetheless allowed for the linking of generations.
The resulting research is among the most eye-opening economics work in recent years.
. . .
After the research began appearing, I mentioned to Chetty, a Stanford professor, and his colleagues that I thought they had a chance to do something no one yet had: create an index of the American dream. It took them months of work, using old Census data to estimate long-ago decades, but they have done it. They’ve constructed a data set that shows the percentage of American children who earn more money — and less money — than their parents earned at the same age.
The index is deeply alarming. It’s a portrait of an economy that disappoints a huge number of people who have heard that they live in a country where life gets better, only to experience something quite different.
. . .
About 92 percent of 1940 babies had higher pretax inflation-adjusted household earnings at age 30 than their parents had at the same age.
. . .
For babies born in 1980 — today’s 36-year-olds — the index of the American dream has fallen to 50 percent: Only half of them make as much money as their parents did.

For the full commentary, see:
Leonhardt, David. “The American Dream, Quantified at Last.” The New York Times, SundayReview Section (Sun., DEC. 11, 2016): 2.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date DEC. 8, 2016.)

The Chetty co-authored paper mentioned above, is:
Chetty, Raj, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. “The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.” Science 356, no. 6336 (2017): 398-406.